User:TheCuad27/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books. Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? What are the article's strengths? How can the article be improved? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Ecotoxicity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I choose to evaluate this article because I think it's an important subject that is still not understood very well and can have drastic consequences on our environment and our personal lives. My preliminary impressions was that it would discusses common types of environmental pollution and how they effect our environment and society.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

The introductory sentence defines the article’s topic properly and clearly. The lead section presents a table of contents with all major sections of the article included. However, there is not a brief description of these sections. Overall, the lead section is concise and straightforward. It does not include any unnecessary information, or information that is not discussed in the rest of the article.

Content

The article’s content was relevant to the topic. The article was edited recently, and the content itself is up-to-date. I believe more could have been added to this article. A paragraph dedicated to the overall environmental impact would benefit the article. Paragraphs discussing other pollutants, such as radioactive waste, urban air pollution, and greenhouse gasses could also have improved the overall article. I do not feel as if there was any unnecessary information that did not belong in the article though. Although notice in this topic is gaining notoriety in recent years, ecotoxicity is a topic that has not been explored very thoroughly.

Tone and Balance

I believe that this article was presented in a neutral and unbiased manner. The author discusses some implications on how these pollutants affect our environment, but there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. This article deals with a scientific phenomena, so there are no minority or opposing viewpoints discussed in it. I do not believe that the article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. It simply states the facts of the situation and its consequences.

Sources and References

The facts cited and referenced in the article all come from thorough, reliable sources of information. There are a variety of sources written by a variety of authors.

Unfortunately, these sources are a little outdated (most sources were published in the early 2000s).  Although the sources themselves are trustworthy, using some new and current information can improve the reliability of the article.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article has some sentence structure issues, as well as a few grammatical errors. The article also felt a bit repetitive at certain sections, and some information presented could have been explained more thoroughly. The article is concise, clear, and easy to read for the most part though. Edits on the organization could massively improve the quality of the article.

Images and Media

There are a few images included in the article to give the audience a visual representation of some common environmental toxicants. I believe the captions on the images could be a little more descriptive, but they are sufficient enough. All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. This can be left up to personal preference, but I believe the images could have been laid out in a more appealing way. Pictures of other common environmental toxicants and their effects on their environment would be beneficial to the overall article.

Talk Page Discussion

This article was part of the WikiProject Environment initiative, aimed at improving Wikipedia’s coverage of the environment. This article was rated as a Start-Class on the project’s quality scale, and rated as High-Importance on the project’s importance scale. Wikipedia overall discusses its content in much broader terms (for a wider audience) compared to classes that cover the material.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article gave an adequate introduction into ecotoxicity. The article has some sentence structure issues, as well as a few grammatical errors. The article also felt a bit repetitive at certain sections, and some information presented could have been explained more thoroughly. I also believe that more content could have been added to the article (especially a conclusion to wrap up the article). However, the article overall is concise, clear, and easy to read. The author makes good use of vocabulary to thoroughly explain their points, but does not overcomplicate the article. The author also presented their information in a neutral and unbiased manner. Edits on the organization and updates on cited information could massively improve the quality of the article.